Regarding the last post, respected peer and esteemed blogger YouSoWould admonished:
Do the vast majority of girls use “I was date raped” as an excuse for their irresponsible binge drinking? Yes.
Does this mean that no-one has, or will ever be drugged and sexually assaulted? No, of course not.
Not addressing you specifically here, but I think the manosphere would benefit from choosing its language carefully over this issue. “No-one has ever been date raped” is an unnecessarily inflammatory stance, and almost certainly not true.
What was said is that (chances are) if she claims that she has been given roofies as the means to date rape her, then she is lying and has a personality disorder.
The (chances are) part can be left unsaid and assumed, given the context of the arguments.
I can’t see how an honest reading could leave anyone to conclude that I believe that NO ONE has ever been given roofies. That’s not what the post was about.
There is no need to have tip-toe perfect all-clauses accounted for logic in every sentence. The obvious logical assumptions are assumed. We are not kindergarteners here. The readers of this blog are (nearly all) intelligent. See what I did there? The (nearly all) could be left out, as it would in normal conversation simply be implied and assumed.
You’ve probably noticed how women are fond of the NAWALT argument, and use it to dissimulate. Whenever a generalization is made, they try to refute it by pointing out how not ALL examples of that generalization are true.
There is no need to cater to such Not-All-Women-Are-Like-That arguments. Ordinary language with ordinary generalizations is understood by ordinary people.
Even if the PC police are watching over your shoulder, eager to correct every move your mouth makes, fuck em. There is no need to pre-edit our speech for them. We know what a generalization is, and we know when it is being made. We don’t have to preface every sentence with “in general” and “mostly”.